Jump to content

New Ford 7.0 L....?


Recommended Posts

I think we're really talking about two engines here. A 7.0-ish for an optional engine in f350 (possibly f250 as well if cafe/emissions allow) and a base engine in F450-F650, replacing the V10. Hopefully a special "427" edition Mustang too. This could probably just be a stroked or scaled version of the current 6.2. Then an even larger engine - something at least 500 ci for applications as an optional engine in F650 and base engine in F750. This would likely require a new block with more bore spacing and deck height.

 

Of course we're just dreaming here but at least there's some sort of rumor that Ford is working on at least one of these.

Edited by Sevensecondsuv
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't resist commenting on the Super Duty V-8's! Legend has it they were designed by some moonlighting International Harvester engineers, they were something of a scaled up MEL with a similar 'plank head' combustion chamber and staged cooling system. Plenty of power, very reliable, one of the best big gassers of it's day (the others were the REO/White V-8 and GMC V-6 family). Most all of these engines were gone by the mid-70's, but the Super Duty hung on until 1980, I think due to it's popularity with fire apparatus manufacturers and the uncompetitive (though reliable) 361/391XD. More modern truck V-8's like the Chevy 427, International MV's, and Dodge 413 out-powered the 391XD so Ford had to keep the Super Duty around until the Lima 429 appeared in 1979. Ford even developed a special '475' version of the 477 Super Duty for the F series mediums so they could remain competitive with the 427 powered Chevy C-65. Emission controls were taking a toll on the Super Duty, and when the Lima 429 was introduced it had more horsepower with a little less torque, but was much lighter and gave better fuel economy.

 

One issue the Super Duty V-8 had was a rather strange 'dual log' (for lack of a better term) intake manifold(s). Not the best for even distribution and plenty of restrictive 90 degree turns. Somewhat strangely, Ford finally got around to addressing that issue in 1977, when they came out with a dual plane conventional intake, which I was told this was much better. Here is a picture:

 

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd72/mnavarrog/SUPER-BBF5.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of medium duties from the 70s, my friend has a 74 F-650 dump that some municipality ordered with the 332 FT and the Allison 4 speed auto. I've never driven anything so slow in my life. On flat ground it'll hit about 43 mph empty. With a load of dirt it'll do 25 until there's any incline at all, then it's 16 mph. It's so bad that the tractor and dump wagon is oftentimes a faster means of moving a load a few miles. Gotta wonder what Ford was thinking with that combo. I'm pretty sure a 300 six would be an upgrade to that 332.

Edited by Sevensecondsuv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of medium duties from the 70s, my friend has a 74 F-650 dump that some municipality ordered with the 332 FT and the Allison 4 speed auto. I've never driven anything so slow in my life. On flat ground it'll hit about 43 mph empty. With a load of dirt it'll do 25 until there's any incline at all, then it's 16 mph. It's so bad that the tractor and dump wagon is oftentimes a faster means of moving a load a few miles. Gotta wonder what Ford was thinking with that combo. I'm pretty sure a 300 six would be an upgrade to that 332.

Hey, for use just on city streets it was probably OK in its day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well guys this is my analysis as uneducated as it may seem. If I were Ford and there really was a need for an 8 liter engine I sure as heck would be getting to work on it.

 

The engine I would be working on is a scaled up version of the current 6.2 Raptor architecture.

 

In many ways that is a perfect V8. I personally believe OHC engines are the least compromised designs with incredible potential flexibility.

 

You put VVT and an active intake manifold on a 500 inch engine and you're gonna be surprised at the gobs of torque you could summon up with that combo.

 

I don't know but maybe such an engine could utilize the machining centers that currently produce the 6.7 Scorpion diesel. At least maybe cylinder bores and main bearing bores etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that didn't take long to make it under the hood of the mustang. I always thought it was a bit of a travesty that Ford went through all the trouble to design and build a good, durable V10 and then not once of the course of 20 years did they bother to put it under the hood of a mustang. Let's hope this new 7.0 appears in at least one more special edition stang that is slightly more available/affordable than the GT500. Actually I'll just be thrilled if it's an option in the F250.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question on a new 7 liter gas V8 engine should include what is the path with the least investment given the equipment that already exists to produce, 6.8 l V10 engines, the 5.0 and 5.2 liter V8 engines????

 

With GM and International cooperating in midrange truck assembly, they probably need a gas engine that does not exist yet at GM. The 6.0 liter LS engine is probably too small. International only makes diesel engines, not gas engines.

 

So does Ford use the 6.2 basic archetecture to get to 7.0 liters, probably with a higher deck than the current 239mm or do they do a totally new 7.0 liter utilizing the design concepts from the 2.7l V6 ecoboost?, ie CGI and extensive use of aluminium???

 

In midrange truck, the duty cycle goes way up compared to light duty so anything that has siemesed bores is not a good idea.

 

Edselford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, maybe not a 6.2L derivative? Doesn't make sense on the surface to make an engine just for commercial trucks, but if Ford could increase volume offering the engine in other platforms.......

 

BTW- International offers 8.8L gasoline and LNG V-8 engines in school bus chassis, and those engines may eventually be in their medium duty trucks as well. In addition, GM is working on a V-8 larger than their 6.0L for trucks as well.

 

Pushrods are not a bad thing in some applications.

Edited by 7Mary3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

not once of the course of 20 years did they bother to put it under the hood of a mustang.

 

It couldn't be accommodated on an ordinary assembly line, and it would have been more hassle to accommodate at the Shelby specialty shop than the various turbocharged V8s they went with.

 

And, FWIW, they did put a V10 under the hood of a Mustang at least once:

 

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/mustang/2004/112_0308_ford_mustang_boss_350_v_10/

http://www.hotrod.com/articles/hrdp-0401-1999-ford-mustang-gt/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It couldn't be accommodated on an ordinary assembly line, and it would have been more hassle to accommodate at the Shelby specialty shop than the various turbocharged V8s they went with.

 

And, FWIW, they did put a V10 under the hood of a Mustang at least once:

 

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/mustang/2004/112_0308_ford_mustang_boss_350_v_10/

http://www.hotrod.com/articles/hrdp-0401-1999-ford-mustang-gt/

 

I believe there would have been some issues with crash testing as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...